Source journals
Scope, tiers & prioritisation
The journal covers all of the social sciences — but a paper is in scope only when it makes a substantive contribution to AI or AGI. The paper must have AI/AGI as a central object, mechanism, empirical setting, theoretical implication, policy concern or methodological contribution. A paper that merely mentions AI is excluded.
Pilot cluster. AI/AGI in management, organisations, information systems, labour, governance and policy — close to ABS/AJG relevance, with strong societal impact.
Eligible fields
- Management & organisation studies
- Information systems
- Economics
- Labour studies
- Sociology
- Political science
- Public policy
- Public administration
- Law & regulation
- Education
- Psychology & behavioural science
- Communication & media studies
- Science & technology studies
- Anthropology
- Criminology & surveillance studies
- Innovation studies
- Ethics & responsible innovation (as social-science scholarship)
What “top-tier” means
A combination model, not a single list:
- 1. Field-normalised rankings as the backbone.
- 2. ABS/AJG 2024 where relevant (management, business, IS, accounting, finance, marketing, operations, organisation studies).
- 3. JCR, Scopus, SJR, SNIP and discipline-specific rankings where available.
- 4. Learned-society and university-press prestige.
- 5. Editorial-board curation with public justification.
Journal tiers
| Tier | Meaning | Inclusion rule |
|---|---|---|
| S | Core elite source journals | Routine monitoring. |
| A | High-quality field-leading journals | AI triage and selective critique. |
| B | Selective-inclusion journals | Critique only if AI/AGI relevance is high. |
| Exception | Under-ranked but important journals | Requires public editorial justification. |
| Watchlist / excluded | Weak, dubious or out-of-scope journals | Normally excluded. |
Paper prioritisation
The platform does not critique every AI-related paper. Candidates are prioritised by a weighted score:
- AI/AGI centrality25%
- Source-journal tier20%
- Policy or institutional relevance15%
- Methodological importance or fragility15%
- Conceptual novelty10%
- Early attention (citations, downloads, policy mentions, media)10%
- Risk of public over-interpretation5%